Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4, 7, and 9-20 are pending. Claims 5, 6, 8, and 21 have been canceled. Note that, Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed February 10, 2026, have been entered. Note that, the prior art rejection(s) set forth in the Final Office action mailed June 5, 2023, were affirmed in a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on June 27, 2025, on claims that were substantially similar to the instant claims.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 10/10/25 have been withdrawn:
The objections to claims 2-4, 7, 9, and 12-19 due to minor informalities have been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 7, and 9-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement, has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention, has been withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angell et al (US 5,795,854) in view of Schmiedel et al (US 2010/0227788), Kubozono et al (US 2010/0267602), and/or Smith et al (US 2010/0242997); Barreleiro et al (US 2018/0187130); and Zimmermenn et al (US 7,588,697).
Angell et al teach a bleach-containing detergent composition which contains a peroxygen bleaching compound and a bleach activator. See Abstract. The bleach activators are in the form of cyclindrically shaped extrudates and comprise from 60% to 95% by weight of a bleach activator, from about 0.1 to 10% by weight of palimitic acid, from 0.1% to 10% of a detersive surfactant, from about 0.1 to 10% by weight of polyethylene glycol, ad from about 0.1 to 10% of a fatty acid. See column 6, lines 1-35. Suitable bleach activators include sodium nonanoyloxybenzene sulfonate (NOBS), etc. The bleach activator extrudates have a mean length of from about 500 microns to about 3500 microns. See column 4, lines 10-40. The bleach-containing detergent composition contains from 0.1% to 75% by weight of a peroxygen bleach, from about 0.1% to 50% by weight of a bleach activator, etc. Suitable peroxygen compounds include sodium percarbonate, sodium perborate, etc. Additionally, the composition may contain additional ingredients such as enzymes, soil release agents, dispersing agents, optical brighteners, perfumes, etc., and mixtures thereof. See claims 1-11. Builders may be used in composition including aluminosilicates, crystalline layered silicates, sodium carbonates, etc., and mixtures thereof. See column 17, lines 1-25. Specifically, Angell et al teach a composition containing 11% by weight of C12-C16 linear alkyl benzene sulfate, 2.2% Neodol 23-6.5, 3% by weight of polyacrylate, 1.2% of polyethylene glycol MW-4000, 10.5% sodium sulfate, 21.0% sodium carbonate, 6% by weight of NOBS extrudates (i.e., bleach activator), etc. See column 18, lines 1-69.
Angell et al do not teach the overall composition in the form of pellets/granulates, the use of polyethylene glycol having the specific molecular weight as recited by the instant claims, bleach coated with a surfactant, or a composition in the form of a pellet/granulate containing a bleach agents coated with a surfactant, a bleach activator, a builder, polyethylene glycols having molecular weight about 400 and about 9000, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by the instant claims.
Schmiedel et al teach granulates of sensitive washing-or cleaning agent ingredients. The granulates may contain bleach activators such as TAED, NOBS, etc., in amounts from 0.01% to 20% by weight. See paras. 32-40. Additionally, the granulates may contain perfumes/scents in amounts up to 2% by weight of the formula. See paras. 27-30. The granulates have a particle diameter of from 100 to 4000 microns (i.e., 1 to 4 mm). See para. 73.
Kubozono et al teach bleaching granulates. See Abstract and para. 26. Kubozono et al teach surfactant containing pellets having a diameter of 10 mm and a length of about 5 to 30 mm which are made by an extruder. See para. 353.
Smith et al teach the use of detergent compositions which may be in the form of extruded solids such as pellets, etc. The pellets may have a diameter of 1 to 10 mm. See para. 93.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use TAED as a bleach activator in the composition taught by Angell et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Schmiedel et al teach the equivalence of TAED to NOBS as a bleach activator in a similar composition and further, Angell et al teach the use of NOBS.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use, for example, 1% by weight of perfume in the compositions taught by Angell et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Schmiedel et al teach the use, for example, of 1% by weight of perfume in a similar composition and further, Angell et al teach the use of perfumes in general.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate the granulate as taught by Angell et al as having a diameter, for example of 2mm, 5mm, or 10mm, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Schmiedel et al, Smith et al, or Kubozono et al teach the formulation of similar granules having a diameter of 2mm, 5mm, or 10mm, respectively, and further, Angell et al teach the formulation of detergent granules in general.
Barreleiro et al teach granulates comprising one or more sulfonimines, and one or more acids. See Abstract. Additionally, the compositions may contain a binder which may be polyethylene glycol having a molecular weight from 200 to 5,000,000 etc. The use of a binder improves the cohesion of the granulates. See paras. 66-75.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use polyethylene glycols having a molecular weight, for example, of 400 and 9000 in the composition taught by Angell et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Barreleiro et al teach that the use of polyethylene glycols having a molecular weight of, for example, 400 and 9000 improves the cohesion of the granules and further, such increased cohesion would be desirable in the compositions taught by Angell et al. Note that, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a mixture of PEG having a molecular weight of 400 and 9000 in the composition taught by Angell et al since Barrelerio et al teach the equivalence of PEG as a binder material having a range of molecular weights.
Zimmermann et al teach coated sodium percarbonate granules comprising a core, an inner coating layer containing an inorganic hydrate forming salt as its main component, and an outer coating layer containing a surfactant as its main component. Suitable surfactants include C8-C20 alkyl benzene sulfonates, C12-C18 alkyl sulfates and alkyl ethoxy sulfates, etc. The sodium percarbonate granules display improved storage stability combined with high internal stability and a high active oxygen content. The quantity of the outer coating is from 0.1 to 10% by weight and the surfactant is at least 80% by weight of the outer coating. See Abstract and column 4, lines 1-69.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to coat the sodium percarbonate as taught by Angell et al with an outer coating of a surfactant such as an alkyl benzene sulfonate, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Zimmermann et al teach that coating a similar sodium percarbonate with an outer coating of a surfactant such as an alkyl benzene sulfonate provides improved storage stability combined with high internal stability and a high active oxygen content and further, such properties would be desirable in the compositions taught by Angell et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition in the form of a pellet/granulate containing a pellet/granulate containing bleach agents coated with a surfactant, a bleach activator, a builder, polyethylene glycols having molecular weight about 400 and about 9000, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by the instant claims, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the broad teachings of Angell et al in view of Schmiedel et al, Smith et al, Kubozono et al; Barreleiro et al; and Zimmermann et al suggest a composition in the form of a pellet/granulate containing a pellet/granulate containing a bleach agents coated with a surfactant, a bleach activator, a builder, polyethylene glycols having molecular weight about 400 and about 9000, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by the instant claims.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angell et al (US 5,795,854) in view of Schmiedel et al (US 2010/0227788), Kubozono et al (US 2010/0267602), and/or Smith et al (US 2010/0242997); Barreleiro et al (US 2018/0187130); and Zimmermann et al (US 7,588,697) as applied to claims 1-4, 7, 9-15, and 18-20 above, and further in view of Caldwell et al (US 2005/0101503).
Angell et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Angell et al do not teach the use of citric acid in addition to the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by the instant claims.
Caldwell et al teach laundry detergent particles. See Abstract. The particles may contain from 5 to 50% of a builder, wherein suitable builders include citric acid, etc. Additionally, the composition may include a salt such as sodium carbonate, etc., in amounts from 5 to 60% by weight. See paras. 63-64.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use citric acid and specific amounts of sodium carbonate as recited by the instant claims in the composition taught by Angell et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Caldwell et al teach the use of citric acid and sodium carbonate in the specific amounts as recited by the instant claims in a similar composition as builders and salts and further, Angell et al teach the use of builders in general and the use of sodium carbonate.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 103 using Angell et al in view of Schmiedel et al, Kubozono et al, and/or Smith et al; Barreleiro et al; and Zimmermann et al, Applicant states there is no indication in Barreleiro that the granulate should comprise two different PEGs with quite different molecular weights and as noted in Applicant's previous arguments, and not addressed by the Office, PEGs with molecular weights under 700 take the form of a viscous liquid, while PEGs with molecular weights between 3,000 and 20,000 take the form of waxy solids. Additionally, Applicant states that Barreleiro discloses a group of PEGs with 4,999,800 different molecular weights and the range of Barreleiro is of such a breadth to fail to render a pair of PEGs in its scope prima facie obvious.
In response, note that, the Examiner asserts the teachings of a reference are not limited to the preferred embodiments and that the broad teachings of Angell et al in view of Schmiedel et al, Kubozono et al, and/or Smith et al; Barreleiro et al; and Zimmermann et al suggest compositions containing the same components in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims. Note that, the fact that a specific embodiment is taught to be preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of the disclosed alternatives. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "[a] reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment." CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); see also In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (explaining that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions". Additionally, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); a known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994); See MPEP 2123(II). The fact that a reference discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 R.2d 804, 808 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See also, In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (obviousness rejection of claims affirmed in light of prior art teaching that “hydrated zeolites will work” in detergent formulations even though “the inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from amount thousands of compounds”); In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the disclosure of the prior art was huge, but it undeniably included at least some of the compounds recited in appellant’s generic claims and was a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant’s additives).
The Examiner asserts that Schmiedel et al, Kubozono et al, and/or Smith et al; Barreleiro et al; and Zimmermenn et al are analogous prior art relative to the claimed invention and Angell et al, and one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have looked to the teachings of Schmiedel et al, Kubozono et al, and/or Smith et al; Barreleiro et al; and Zimmermenn et al to cure the deficiencies of Angell et al. The Examiner would like to point out that the prior art of record clearly teaches compositions in the form of granulates which would clearly overlap with, and fall within the broad scope of pellets as recited by the instant claims. Additionaly, the Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to coat the sodium percarbonate as taught by Angell et al with an outer coating of a surfactant such as an alkyl benzene sulfonate, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Zimmermann et al teach that coating a similar sodium percarbonate with an outer coating of a surfactant such as an alkyl benzene sulfonate provides improved storage stability combined with high internal stability and a high active oxygen content and further, such properties would be desirable in the compositions taught by Angell et al.
Additionally, the Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use polyethylene glycols having a molecular weight, for example, of 400 and 9000 in the composition taught by Angell et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Barreleiro et al teach that the use of polyethylene glycols having a molecular weight of 400 and/or 9000 are suitable binders and improve the cohesion of the granules and further, such increased cohesion would be desirable in the compositions taught by Angell et al. Note that, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a mixture of PEG having a molecular weight of 400 and 9000 since Barrelerio et al teach the equivalence of PEG as a binder material having a range of molecular weights. While PEG of different molecular weight may have varying physical properties, the Examiner asserts that the prior art clearly recognizes the equivalence of PEG 400 to PEG 9000 as a binder material, and it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose…[T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.06. Note that, “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not do more than yield predictable results. When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” See KSR, 550 US at 416. Obviousness does not require certainty of success; it requires only a reasonable expectation of success. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWE Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1198 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The reasonable expectation of success requirement for obviousness does not necessitate an absolute certainty for success.”). The evidence of record weighs in favor of the Examiner’s determination that the invention is nothing more than the predictable result of a combination of familiar elements according to known methods. See Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3ed 1358, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“A strong case of prima facie obviousness…cannot be overcome by a far weaker showing of objective indicia of nonobviousness.”); KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (explaining that a prima facie case of obviousness is established where an Examiner demonstrates that the invention is nothing more than the predictable result of a combination of familiar elements according to known methods); cf. In re Farrenkopf, 713 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of Angell et al in view of Schmiedel et al, Kubozono et al, and/or Smith et al; Barreleiro et al (US 2018/0187130); and Zimmermenn et al (US 7,588,697), are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
Further, with respect to the use of two different polyethylene glycols having a molecular weight of 400 and 9,000, Applicant states that this variable to isolate two of those disclosed by Barreliero et al in order to create a pellet having the desired balance of hardness and tackiness creating "stable adhesion of the components under the compression action of the extrusion process" while "prevent[ing] the pellets from being able to then mutually adhere." (pg. 5, lines 22-29 of the instant specification). In response, note that Barreliero et al clearly teaches that the use of polyethylene glycol binders improve the cohesion of the granules which is the same advantage pointed out by Applicant in the instant specification. Additionally, note that, while the properties of the claimed composition are described in the instant specification, the Examiner asserts that these statements are not supported by any factual or numeric data demonstrating the criticality of selecting a mixture of polyethylene glycols having a molecular weight of 400 and 9000 and are not sufficient to show the unexpected and superior properties of the claimed invention in comparison to compositions falling outside the scope of the instant claims. Note that, it is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence. Mere argument or conclusory statements in the specification does not suffice. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); See also In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 5642 (CCPA 1978) (“Mere lawyer’s arguments and conclusory statements in the specification, unsupported by objective evidence, are insufficient to establish unexpected results.”). See MPEP 716.01(c)(I).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on (571) 272-2817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/May 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights